that evidence extremely difficult
to accept.

Lastly, Jean Kostka and M. A. C. de la Rive, though they came within the
scope of our inquiry, are not Palladian witnesses. It would appear,
therefore, that Leo Taxil and M. Adolphe Ricoux are, for the most part,
neither honoured in their witnesses nor in a position to stand alone.
The evidence which has grown out of their discovery is in an exceedingly
corrupt state, and in summing the Question of Lucifer, as an impartial
critic, I shall therefore simply propose to my readers the following
general statement:--In the year 1891, Leo Taxil and M. Adolphe Ricoux
state that they have discovered certain documents which show the
existence of a Palladian Society, claimed to be at the head of Masonry,
and in the year 1895 Signor Domenico Margiotta states that he belonged
to that society and gives further particulars concerning it. A number of
other witnesses have also come forward whose evidence must, for various
reasons, be completely rejected. It is in all respects much to be
deplored that Signor Margiotta has largely and approvingly cited the
testimony of two of these witnesses who are most open to condemnation,
and that he has himself exercised an imperfect and uncritical censorship
over papers which have come into his hands. From first to last all
documents are open to strong suspicion.

Such is the slender residue which results from this sifting of Lucifer;
if I have made my final statement thus indeterminate in its character,
it is because I wish my readers to form their own conclusions as to Leo
Taxil and Domenico Margiotta, and because I believe that, before long,
further evidence will be forthcoming. I have little personal doubt as to
the ultimate nature of the verdict, but at the present stage of the
inquiry, with all the exposures which I have had the satisfaction of
making fresh and clear in my mind, I would dissuade any one from saying
that there is "nothing in" the Question of Lucifer; it is at least
obvious that there is no end to its impostures, in which respect I do
not claim to have done more than trim the fringes of the question. It is
not therefore closed, and, if I may so venture to affirm, it assumes a
fresh interest with the appearance of this book. It deserves to rank
among the most extraordinary literary swindles of the present, perhaps
of any, century. The field which it covers is enormous, and there is
room, and more than room, for a score of other inves